Doe Gonzales v. Maher’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 1470 · 1986
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Honig v. Doe (1988), Dellmuth v. A Muth (1989)
51 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1401 · 20 U.S.C. § 1412 · 20 U.S.C. § 1414 · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Edelman v. Jordan · Goss v. Lopez · Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Bd of Ed Westchester County v. Rowley · Davis v. Scherer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the state stresses the language in 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(1) (1982) that speaks of the state’s responsibility for direct action when the locality fails to maintain “programs” of free appropriate education, section 1414(d)(3) specifically requires direct action when a local education agency “has one or more handicapped children who can best be served by a regional or State center designed to meet the needs of such children.” Id. § 1414(d)(3) (emphasis added). It would seem incontrovertable [sic] that, whenever the local agency refuses or wrongfully neglects to provide a handicapped child with a free appropriate education, that child “can best be served” on the regional or state level. See Kruelle v. New Castle County School District, 642 F.2d 687, 696-99 (3d Cir.1981) (holding that the district court did not err in assigning to the state board of education the responsibility of providing a child with an appropriate public education); Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 511 F.Supp. 1263 (N.D.Ga.1981) (holding that 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d) places the responsibility on the state educational agency either to make sure that local agencies provide adequate educational services to handicapped children, or to provide directly such services themselves), aff'd, 716 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, 468 U.S. 1213 , 104 S.Ct. 3581 , 82 L.Ed.2d 880 (1984); cf. S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342, 350 (5th Cir.) (Unit B) (holding that a state agency can b”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a child’s misbehavior is properly determined not to be a manifestation of his handicap, the handicapped child can be expelled, [citations omitted] When a child’s misbehavior does not result from his handicapping condition, there is simply no justification for exempting him from the rules, including those regarding expulsion, applicable to other children. Therefore, when a handicapped child is properly expelled, the school district may cease providing all educational services, just as it could in any other case. To do otherwise would amount to asserting that all acts of a handicapped, both good and bad are fairly attributable to his handicap. We know that is not so.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The state is .not obliged to intervene directly in an individual case whenever the local agency falls short of its responsibilities in some small regard. The breach must be significant (as in this case), the child’s parents or guardian must give the responsible state officials adequate notice of the local agency’s noncompliance, and the state must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to compel local compliance.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.